<p>^ very true Dionysus...i'm not trying to belittle blacks or hispanics, but if i were black or hispanic i would personally feel terrible if i got into a school like harvard or princeton with sub par SATs/GPA/ECs</p>
<p>as far as Li's case goes...i dont think he'll get very far with it, but maryjane89 is right...it will make admissions officers think twice about discrimination...plus, pretty much the only way he can prove that he was discriminated against is if he has proof that the admissions officers PHYSICALLY said "he's asian...we've accepted enough...so reject him"...or something along those lines</p>
<p>Def: It may go farther than that. If the government chooses to investigate the larger allegation that Princeton prefers white students to Asian ones, this could get a little awkward for them.
Nelle: If a school gives preference to early applicants, who are disproportionately rich kids from good schools, then they are effectively giving a preference to rich kids from good schools, regardless of whether that was the main intention.</p>
<p>That was a smart move on your part, and you can say it's those other kids' fault for being uninformed, but from the school's point of view, if the program is producing negative results, then why keep it? In fact, it seems pretty clear that Princeton considered this a sufficiently undesirable side effect to drop the program.
Additionally, the financial aspect can be intimidating. If you're not in contact with someone from the school who is familiar with the process, you might end up with the idea that accepted students are obliged to enroll regardless of whether they can afford it. One might argue that this is a stupid thing to think, but look how many newspaper writers manage to get it wrong in their early decision articles in spite of having interviewed a high-ranking admissions officer for their stories.</p>
<p>Early admissions only favour the wealthy insofar as they favour the informed, who statistically correlate with the wealthy for some reason or other. All that Princeton did before abolishing early decision (which, in my opinion, they will bring back at the same time Harvard does) was allow the kids who were clever enough to take a second glance at the website a slight edge.</p>
<p>I disagree that Princeton's decision represented a values judgement on their part. Harvard went out and abolished a program that was SEEN as discriminatory, whatever the truth was. Princeton reciprocated in the same way that Harvard reciprocated when Princeton abolished loans a few years ago. Just one more step in the media-university tango that tertiary education insists on dancing.</p>
<p>On some level, it could be said that a willingness to commit early represents foresight and dedication on the applicant's part. Students at private schools will probably be advised to apply early (as I was) thanks to more personal counselling, but students at public schools have that same opportunity as long as they think far enough ahead and deep enough to realize what everyone else has been saying for years.</p>
<p>Godofcoffee, when "everyone else" includes people whose students, siblings and children have recently applied to elite colleges, it's a lot easier to realize those things. A student who actually does just click on a school's ED webpage will find a false denial that it provides students with an advantage. Sure, it's a naive thing to believe, but the fact that many students got it spelled out for them while others didn't is still unfair.</p>
<p>That's true; it's unfair when it's easier for some than others. Then again, if a student from a poor neighborhood/school is good enough to get into Princeton (takes hardest classes, gets high SAT scores, does something for community), you would think that they would care enough to find out everything about their dream school. I mean, ED is becomming more and more popular; it's not just secretly hidden on websites.</p>
<p>Affirmative action based on race is an insult, not to the minorities but to the real disadvantaged in society. They say that most so called "minorities" benefiting from this system at top schools have comparative middle class or higher income levels, certainly not placing them at any financial or social impediments. </p>
<p>The story of the poor minority living in a violent neighborhood, working a part time job to support a single parent, while attending a underfunded public school, is nothing more than the illusion that most affirmative action supporters had during its conception. </p>
<p>The focus should be on family income and the educational opportunities of their high school. After all, what makes an African American student, attending a private school and whose family makes 300,000 a year, a disadvantage over a kid of a struggling, recently immigrated Asian family?</p>
<p>gryffon-- i completely agree.
i did a report about this in french last year (that was actually in french lmao) and i found that there are plenty of african americans and hispanics from wealthy families and asian kids from the ghettos.</p>
<p>the only thing that is "good" about affirmative action is that it promises racial diversity at schools, which is what a lot are looking for.</p>
<p>in a way, affirmative action makes me want to say that it's the college's fault if it wants to lower its prestige...if a school like princeton accepts a URM with a 2000 and a low gpa vs. an asian with a 2200 and a high gpa, it's their fault...their prestige will simply go down for producing quality students</p>
<p>but they are a good indicator of academic potential. generally, smarter people tend to get higher scores. gpa also shows determination and ability to keep up with work/responsibility, and gives a good sense of how that student would do in a college environment</p>